U.S. Funds for Alameda Corridor Are in Jeopardy : Transit: More than $53 million appropriated over 13 years has not been spent and now Congress wants it back. Officials of the project, which would improve port-rail links, express surprise and say delays were inevitable.

A giant project designed to markedly increase the movement of cargo from ports to trains in Southern California is in danger of losing more than $53 million in federal funding because the money, some of it appropriated as long as 13 years ago, has not been spent.

The funding for the Alameda Corridor Project, which would provide a direct link from the county’s two ports to rail yards, is in jeopardy because the Republican-controlled Congress wants to take it back.

Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan called such a possibility “shortsighted” for what he has called “the most important economic asset for Southern California over the next 30 years.” A major lobbying effort is under way by California officials to retain the funding, whose fate may be decided as early as Monday. On Thursday, U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer hand-delivered letters to key senators seeking their support.

The funds are on the chopping block because budget cutters are scrutinizing funds allocated long ago but never used. The two Alameda Corridor allocations--the first handed out in 1982, the second in 1987--represent about 20% of all such highway money that Congress is examining.

Those involved in the project say that the potential loss has caught most of them by surprise and that they never expected the money to be taken away once it was earmarked, no matter how long ago.

And they justify not having used the money by saying that the projects were a low priority for many years and that local matching money was not available to fully fund them.

But Gilbert V. Hicks, executive director of the Alameda Corridor Authority, said he had been urging local governments with control of the money to spend it because Congress was taking a harder look at funding allocated but not used. He said congressional leaders told him and others last March that further funding of the project was in jeopardy. The federal contribution over the life of the project is expected to be about $700 million.

“It’s been a huge frustration of mine that they haven’t moved forward,” Hicks said. Those involved in the project are the cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Carson, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and Los Angeles County.

The corridor project, touted as the major step in ensuring Southern California’s economic future, would be a 20-mile rail and truck route designed to significantly speed the loading and unloading of cargo at the two ports.

When complete, supporters say it will provide the critical ingredient for the expansion of both ports, which hope to triple their exports and imports over the next 25 years.

Officials also say the corridor will create thousands of jobs and provide environmental benefits by eliminating thousands of hours of traffic delays caused by trains moving through the city, and thereby improve air quality.

The efforts to move the corridor plan from the drawing board to reality have been stepped up in the last year. Significant milestones in 1994 included an agreement with major railroads to use only tracks along the corridor and the allocation of $80 million in state funds to help finance the first phase of construction.

Hicks said it was hoped those two events would take care of congressional requirements.

“The message we received loud and clear from Congress was that we had to do two things before they would consider further funding,” he said. “We had to have the railroad agreement and we had to more aggressively start spending the funds we had already been given.” But then came the latest round of budget cuts. The first affecting the corridor project is the proposed cut of $11 million in road projects near the ports, the remainder of a $58-million allocation from 1982.

A second calls for $120 million in cuts nationwide from money allocated in 1987 but still unused. The largest portion by far was for the Alameda Corridor.

In explaining what happened and why the money wasn’t spent, officials cite several reasons. Ralph Kennedy, chief deputy engineer for Los Angeles, said programs in which multiple layers of government are involved almost always require a long time to complete. He said that there may have been difficulties in acquiring rights of way and that there are “competing priorities with a very small staff.”

Jim Drago, a spokesman for the California Department of Transportation, said the federal funding required matching money, which was not available until $80 million in bond money was released last year for that purpose.

Bob Cashin, who specializes in the southeast area of the county for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, said another reason the money was not used was the need to settle right-of-way questions with railroads before proceeding.

But Dan Cartagena, the planning and transportation deputy for City Councilman Rudy Svorinich, whose district includes the Port of Los Angeles, said the money should have been spent in a timely manner because the money involved “seed projects that breathe life into the corridor.

“We needed to show good faith that we followed through with already-appropriated money,” he said. “We’re dealing with a long-term commitment in commerce and trade.”